VALERIE PLAME OR VALERIE WILSON?....This post is sort of an open thread. I have a question I'm curious to get feedback on.

Here's the thing: the Washington Post article I blogged about this morning said, among other things, that a Post reporter was one of the targets of the White House leakers back in July. However, the reporter says that his source didn't mention
Valerie Plame's name, only that "Joseph Wilson's wife" worked for the
CIA. This supports the theory that perhaps no one was really trying to
expose Plame's covert activities, but instead did it inadvertantly.

But — Robert Novak did use the name Valerie Plame in
his original July 14 column. Now, it's certainly possible that Novak
discovered her maiden name himself (it was publicly available), but I
can't think of any reason that he would actually use it unless the name
was deliberately given to him by his White House source. After all,
wives all have maiden names, but if they go by their married name (which
she did), that's the name it's natural to use. It would be bizarre,
for example, if someone looked up my wife's maiden name and then
referred to her as "Kevin Drum's wife, Marian Riegel," even though she
doesn't go by that name.

So here's the question. The only way to get the White House off the
hook for deliberately spilling the name that Plame used on her covert
assignments is to posit that Novak decided to use it on his own for some
reason. Can anyone come up with some plausible scenario in which he'd
do this?

And let's try to keep the flame wars and jokes to a minimum, OK? I'm
genuinely curious to know if anyone can think of a reasonably innocent
explanation for this.

Well, it seems like the relevant question is this: say a reporter had
been told that Wilsons' wife was CIA and, in the process of writing his
story, casually tried to find out her name. Is "Valerie Plame" the
name he would find? Or was she Valerie Plame only in her capacity as an operative?

But I've another question. Why can't the six journalists contacted
by the White House now report the abc's of their conversations? They
need not reveal the sources (although I think they should). But
certaintly, at this point, just what (precisely) was said to them is
eminently newsworthy. What's stopping them from doing so?

No, it seems clear that in public she used the name "Valerie Wilson." She only used Plame overseas.

At least, that's what we've been led to believe so far, so I think we
have to go with that. As far as I know, the only place you'd run
across "Plame" is by looking up Wilson's bio and learning that he
"married the former Valerie Plame." But why on earth would you then use
that name?

Sovereign Eye makes a good point ... as for Novak, as a former
reporter, I can easily see a reporter being told "Wilson's wife ..."
then doing some research to find out her FIRST name, coming across one
of the publicly available records that lists her as Plame, and deciding
that must have kept her maiden name, as so many women these days who
marry late in their careers.

Why does the name matter anyway? Her cover would have been just as
blown if Novak had written, "Wilson's wife, a CIA operative, got him the
Niger gig." How hard is to find out who someone's wife is? As you said,
it's public record, married name and maiden name.

The only way it may make sense is if Novak after hearing her name did
a bio search on her came up with her maiden name. And then used a low
level contact at the CIA to confirm her name in some CIA directory. No
Valerie Wilson came up, so Novak thought to give the maiden name.
Valerie Plame comes up, the low level contact says "umm, you'll need to
talk with someone official" and hands Novak higher up where he's told
not to run the name.

Sounds like part of the plausible deniability strategy may end up
being that the White House officials mentioned Wilson's wife but not by
name and therefore this may escape being a "leak of classified
information"?

I can't think of an innocent explanation. The fact that she worked
for the CIA is the relevant issue, not her name. The White House
apparently disclosed the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in a
petty effort to smear Wilson. They may not have intended to out an
operative, but that's what they did.

The use of the name Plame is relevant because her overseas contacts
are unlikely to react to seeing that "Joseph Wilson's wife" or even
"Valerie Wilson" is a CIA operative. They could make the connection, but
it would require more digging. However, when a widely-syndicated column
lists the name "Valerie Plame" we can imagine a rogue element in, let's
say, Iran, saying, "Valerie Plame? That's the Brewster-Jennings woman
who was going to sell us the centrifuge designs! She was brought into
our confidences by that traitor Achmed! He must be killed at once!"

I'm not sure the name (maiden or married) is particularly important,
since as several folks have noted above, that's public record, and any
intelligence effort byt US enemies would easily have uncovered it.

I don't understand the need for the question. This is from the July 22 Newsday article by Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce:

'Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the
information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They
thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." '

I know Novak backtracked after the Bush hit the fan but, unless
Phelps and Royce are shown to have no credibility, I'll believe the
article is accurate and that Novak wrote what he was told to write.
It's also logically consistent with with the subsequent Wapo articles.

I'm sure that many scenarios can be (and are being) constructed to
create a veil of "plausible deniability" within the White House and I
see no need to contribute to the effort.

I agree with Squeakyrat I don't see much mileage in the way her name
was leaked. By saying Wilson's wife was CIA -- whether noc, analyst,
operative, undercover, uncovered, named or unnamed -- would out her
quite effectively.

I do have a couple questions though:

Is the referral from the CIA to Justice public information?

Is the Justice department investigation limited to the question of
whether someone violated the statute that prohibits outing an
intelligence agent? Or can it consider other statutes like the
prohibition against leaking classified information and statutes
prohibiting conspiracies which involve fraudulent activity?

John Dean makes the case that the secondary leakers may be guilty of fraud and conspiracy)
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html

"Mrs. Plame, we're so sorry you're leaving the Somebekistan office of
Brewster-Jennings. We wish you all the best of luck in your marriage
to the ambassador."

It seems to me that her cover is potentially blown either way. We
don't know what sort of contact she had with the people she dealt with
overseas.

As has been said repeatedly, her identity wasn't a secret, the fact
that she secretly worked for the CIA was a secret. Revealing any
information about her at all in connection with the CIA blows that
cover.

The maiden name thing is a red herring. Her cover is blown the first
time "Wilson's wife" is linked to "CIA operative." The rest of the
information can be uncovered from there.

The White House tells Novak that Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative
without naming names. Novak does a Google search (or has someone do one
for him) to find her name, and finds the bio with her maiden name to
boot. Novak is a veteran who's experienced with the CIA, so he knows she
would use her maiden name under cover. As Rob suggests, he strikes gold
when floating the name at the CIA, and triumphantly authors his column
with unassailable proof that Wilson's wife is an agent.

The White House doesn't even have to know that he intended to use her
name in this scenario. We don't know whether they were aware of how
easy it was for Novak to figure out her name. At the time when Novak
wrote the article, the Wilson bio featuring Plame's undercover name was
in the top 5 Google hits on a search for Wilson's name (if I recall
correctly).

In this scenario, it would be much more difficult to pin any blame
for the crime on the White House. I think this is the message that they
intended you take from the Plame-wasn't-named spin.

Kevin, I've given some thought before this to your question. It was
my own game of "devil's advocate," trying to think of some truly
innocent explanation for this thing. And it just doesn't work for me: I
cannot see this as an innocent event, not given the depth of cover she
enjoyed, the low likelihood of anyone very low in the hierarchy even
knowing about her, and so forth.

By the way, as amusing as his comment is I nonetheless disagree with
Sockeye above. Well, yes, the use of the maiden name probably DID confer
some advantages (surely Plame and her CIA handlers had given it all
much consideration). But the moment her identity as a CIA operative was
in the open, the maiden name dodge would do no more than buy a very
little amount of time ... and no one could ever rely on it to protect
her or her contacts. Unlike their suspicions about the leak of her
identity to the Russians (who, presumably, would use it for their own
purposes, but not share it freely), THIS exposure was catastrophic and
really spelled an end to her undercover work ... and would have done so
even without the maiden name issue.

Which brings me to SqueakyRat's point, which I think is a very valid
one: truly the name used did NOT matter, and we're allowing our energies
to be dissipated a bit by worrying about it.

Well, if they were just trying to discredit Wilson by spinning the
fact that his 'wife' is the one who suggested he take the trip to
Africa, there is no need to use her name Plame. But if the intent is to
totally and ruthlessly out Plame as a warning to any other potential
leakers, and also to make it more devastating to Plame, then you shop
her covert name around. They will know, then, that it likely is coming
from someone with access to highly classified info capable of doing the
same to others.

Good point, worthy of Josh Marshall. Valerie and Joe were only
married a few years before his now legendary trip to Niger (they had 2
year old twins at the time, right?). It was a second marriage for her,
3rd for him, if I remember correctly. The marriage could have been fresh
in someone's mind; Joe (a true hero) did have his 15 minutes of fame,
and she is described as a looker.
So it would make it appear that this was an attempt to attack Joe
through his wife, and their beady little eyes widened at the
prospects.(or it's a case of unrequited love:"That hot blonde at the CIA
married the guy who wears a noose? I'll teach her for telling me to
take a hike!")
Unless, of course, you received the following announcement:
"Mr. and Mrs. Plame are proud to announce the upcoming marriage of their
daughter Valerie, an undercover CIA operative, to Mr. Joseph Wilson.."

I think the whole thing is deliberate -- not just outing Plame by her
"professional" name; but publishing the Brewster Jennings Co. front,
too. Historically, Brewster Jennings is a pretty big name in the
development of MidEast oil concessions, pipelines, etc. Novak's gotta
know that, but he plays dumb, just says the company doesn't seem to
exist and tries to discredit Plame listing it as her employer with her
campaign contribution. I think Novak is a willing (though perhaps not
all-knowing) conduit it this.

What do you mean by "The only way to get the White House off the hook
for deliberately spilling the name that Plame used on her covert
assignments is to posit that Novak decided to use it on his own for some
reason."?

John Dean has an interesting take on this at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html

He says, "But even if the White House was not initially involved with
the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself
to additional criminal charges under the federal conspiracy statute.

Why the Federal Conspiracy and Fraud Statutes May Apply Here

This elegantly simple law has snared countless people working for, or
with, the federal government. Suppose a conspiracy is in progress. Even
those who come in later, and who share in the purpose of the
conspiracy, can become responsible for all that has gone on before they
joined. They need not realize they are breaking the law; they need only
have joined the conspiracy.

Most likely, in this instance the conspiracy would be a conspiracy to
defraud - for the broad federal fraud statute, too, may apply here. If
two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not
within the scope of their employment, they can be found guilty of
defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the "faithful and honest services
of its employee." It is difficult to imagine that President Bush is
going to say he hired anyone to call reporters to wreak more havoc on
Valerie Plame. Thus, anyone who did so - or helped another to do so -
was acting outside the scope of his or her employment, and may be open
to a fraud prosecution.

What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy
for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful
function of any department of government." (Emphasis added.) If
telephoning reporters to further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has
been revealed, and whose safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this
description, I would be quite surprised.

If Newsweek is correct that Karl Rove declared Valerie Plame Wilson
"fair game," then he should make sure he's got a good criminal lawyer,
for he made need one. I've only suggested the most obvious criminal
statute that might come into play for those who exploit the leak of a
CIA asset's identity. There are others."

I think the details are just something to be savored later. The
important thing is that, at a minimum, we're either going to see Karl
Rove gone, or a major hit to Cheney's office.

As an old scandal watcher, my advice is to let this unravel at its
own pace and just enjoy it as it comes out. And it will come out. The
longer it takes, the more turnover we'll see and the more fun it will be
to watch.

The leak of her identity as an agent, regardless of the use of her
name, her maiden name, or her marriage to Joe Wilson, is STILL
criminal...

Any Intel service worth a damn (sheesh, even me with google) could
immediately plug "Joseph Wilson" + wife into google and get hundreds of
hits...including his bio and her name on the Middle East Institute website...

No, her NAME, or her Maiden Name, none of that was secret...it was her CIA status that was secret...

Now, why such a thorough and complete shattering of her cover?

I think that it was an attempted "twofer" 1) get Wilson, and 2) Get Plame.

remember, she was a super-spy involved in "Special Weapons" -- as an
operative she gathered intel and ran a ring...as an analyst she
(presumably) filtered and coalated and contextualized that
information...

Dick Cheney and Lewis Libbey (and Steve Hadley and Bob Joseph??) were
poking around at Langley for better than a year, trying to push
Chalabi's INC garbage...and the analysts and operatives weren't buying it and were complaining (via leaks) about the pushing and the twisting of intel, and the politicization of intel...

Go read the CounterPunch archives, search for VIPs, or for Ray MvGovern...Go read Sy Hersh's articles in the New Yorker...

The Analysts were angry about being pushed, and were pushing back...

I think that the NeoCons saw Val Plame as a target in and of herself,
and that they saw an opportunity to get both Wilson and Plame, to
punish each for their various insubordinations and failures to play
ball....

The "sweaty palmed, double-chinned, combed over policy wonk lusting
after hottie spy" story is a good angle too, but less relevant to the
real meat...

neil: The White House tells Novak that Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA
operative without naming names. Novak does a Google search...and
triumphantly authors his column with unassailable proof that Wilson's
wife is an agent.

The White House doesn't even have to know that he intended to use her name...

In this scenario, it would be much more difficult to pin any blame for the crime on the White House.

I'd like to see the white house try this. How would it go?

"I didn't reveal the agent's name. I just said "that man
over there, second from the end of the bar, in sandals and a festive
shirt, is a CIA operative." At no point did I use his name, so you
can't touch me.

If the statute turns on some absurd technicality whereby identifying
an agent in a way that unambigously points to a specific person without
proving their actual name is a defense, I'll eat my keyboard.

If Novak finds out that she goes under Valerie Plame (and not Wilson)
and that she works for the CIA under that name, the discredit cast upon
Wilson may be somewhat greater in suggesting that CIA operative
"Valerie Plame" got him the job, rather than "Mrs. Joseph Wilson".

They may apply, but that does not mean they will get applied.
Ashcroft and the DOJ will strive to keep the criminal investigation as
narrow as possible. Their goal is to stave of an independent counsel
who might get to the bottom of things, and to "kill" the investigation
asap, and ideally without having to address the issue of who leaked to
Novak (especially if, as it appears, that person(s) was someone senior
in the WH).

I doubt he will map out or investigate a conspiracy. Ashcroft's main
focus will be the statute that criminalizes the disclosure of the
identities of covert agents. It has three or more elements that could
serve as escape hatches for Rove and other subsequent disclosers: 1.
actual knowledge of covert status, 2. actual intent to disclose it, 3.
and the agent's identity cannot have been previously disclosed
'publicly' by the gov. or it is not a crime to 're-disclose' it.

Once they kill (quickly conclude) the criminal investigation, the
rest can be spun as politics, no harm-no foul, and the evils of leakers
in general. Ideally there will be no criminal charges brought (they
will blame the reporters and leakers for that). If there are, they will
be lower level 'administration officials' not in the White House,
charged with lessor offenses hyped to discourage future leakers. It
should all be over by the holidays and forgotten by the new year, or so
they hope. That would be my goal, anyway, if I was defending GWB.... I
mean prosecuting this as I think Ashcroft will.

Interesting question. I dunno... maybe the use of Valerie Plame
instead of Valerie Wilson is part of the attempt to tar J. Wilson with
the perception that he's a nobody who got the job because of his wife -
with the implication that a wife who doesn't take her husband's name
must be domineering and manipulative.

Not a very likely explanation, I guess (and pretty pathetic, if
true), but given the probable target audience of the smear campaign, I
wouldn't rule it out completely.

No way would Novak use it on his own, because it wouldn't have served his purpose.

It's CW, and fairly so, that Novak's intention -- for his own
purposes, or for those of his WH buddies, or some dark and sinister
combination thereof -- was to undermine Wilson's credibility.

So why mention Valerie Plame at all, even with attribution as
Wilson's wife? She wasn't known by that name in DC. It's not like his
is a social column, where readers keep track of those things. In fact,
why even mention her last name, or even her first name?

Yes, he could have found out her maiden name. But why would he? And why would he publish it?

I'm sorry, but this is a fool's errand, of the excruciatingly fair sort that the Right doesn't bother with.

As to getting "the White House off the hook," as many readers have
observed, it's irrelevant. An undercover agent was outed by "top White
House officials" (per Sunday's Post.) End of story.

And the thing that needs to be blown wide open is the tyranny of unnamed sourcing.

IT MUST END.

Used judiciously by reporters who do everything they can to find
secondary confirmatory sources who will speak on the record, there is
nothing ethically wrong with using anonymous sources.
Many of the best investigative stories at least start with anonymous
sources, including the Watergate coverage. We still don't know for
certain who "Deep Throat" was.

Oh, for Pete's sake. The Doomsday subway system under Washington,
with satellite lines to distant parts, is also an open secret that lots
of people know about. If you know exactly where to go and what to look
for, you can even find a half-decent map in at least a dozen large
libraries open to the public, although the librarians will probably call
the FBI as soon as your back is turned.

Does that mean the Sunday supplements should spend the next six weeks
connecting various dots, spotlighting a particularly obtrusive and
implausibly deniable round of engineering that's taken place during this
administration, and otherwise hammering on that story at every
available press conference?

To the extent that her contacts (if any) will have already spent many
an unpleasant evening with Dr. Electrode and Mr. Pliers, and the morale
and usefulness of CIA people are undoubtedly continuing to degrade, I
certainly hope they accomplish something with this other than an
inconclusive tit-for-tat pissing match with the White House.

Why can't the six journalists contacted by the White House now
report the abc's of their conversations? They need not reveal the
sources (although I think they should). But certaintly, at this point,
just what (precisely) was said to them is eminently newsworthy. What's
stopping them from doing so?

For that matter, if they didn't report what was said in the first
place, why do they feel obliged to protect the identity of someone they
now know compromised our national security?

(Sorry, Kev, I know those 2 questions are far afield from your own. But I think they're worthy of consideration).

"As to getting "the White House off the hook," as many readers have
observed, it's irrelevant. An undercover agent was outed by 'top White
House officials'"

I don't think it's irrelevant to the White House!

Most facts can be spun, minimized, rationalized and denied, but not
criminal charges or a conviction. Having your grand political wizzard
frog marched down the WH steps is not the best way to open the campaign
season. They have to see the criminal investigation as a real potential
threat to reelection if they do not contain it and kill it.

But with Republicans controlling congress, Ashcroft could come out
with a lame and inconclusive report and get away with it. Then all that
would be left would be a spin battle between dems and repubs. The
press would move on. Bush would claim vindication.

Unless a leaker comes forward, or a leakee, and the DOJ has no choice
but to follow new evidence that leads to the WH. Then we could see
Karl fall like the statute of Saddam! And Bush go down hard in 2004.
The potential is there.

VP's office says "Who the hell is this bastard Wilson" after NYT op-ed. For sure Cheney and Libby in on this.

Damage control from Rove's batcave gets involved.

Some CIA liason in VP's office drops the classified dime on Plume.
This info is diseminated and discussed. To kill Wilson's message, damage
the messenger.

Smear to go like this through press proxies...CIA lousy on all WMD
info, remember how they dropped the ball on 9/11, Wilson is just the
husband of their WMD honcho who has to cover her incompetent ass.
Secondary benefit of shutting up the analysts who have other bombs like Niger to drop.

Libby delegated to plant with Novak because the Prince of Darkness is his boy

Six other plants co-ordinated out of VP office or Rove's Cave, by people familiar with reporters involved

Rove's later involvement with Matthews was just to keep the smear moving along.

For this to work, if Plume was a NOC, why did they do it?

Because they thought it would work. Even if Wilson screamed, the CIA
and his wife were damaged goods covering their asses. They could play
stupid on her status, and trusted Novak to cover for them. They had no
reason to think Tenet would allow a JP request, he already took the pipe
for the State of the Union.
The story sat for quite a while, it almost worked. Somebody else inside deepthroated them to the WSJ.
They were wrong.

As far as I know, the only place you'd run across "Plame" is by
looking up Wilson's bio and learning that he "married the former Valerie
Plame." But why on earth would you then use that name?

In fact, if Novak found this reference, it seems to me that the
correct inference from this bio is that she no longer went under her
maiden name. If he encountered this bio, it should count only as
evidence that his choice to use "Plame" was all the more calculating. He
would be ignoring the obvious conclusions, aiming to achieve a
deliberate effect -- namely, outing her.

It's particularly hard to avoid this conclusion when you combine it with Novak's calling her in the same breath an "operative".

Ok, I can't stand it anymore. I know you're trying to be reasonable
and non-partisan and all that, but this whole thread is the reason that
the good guys are getting eaten alive across the country.

Can you imagine, even for one instant, the equivalent thread at any
Righty site? "What other explanation could there be for President Gore
not personally grabbing those airliners and preventing them from
crashing into the World Trade Center?"

Is there anyone on the Right - anyone at all - who cuts any Democrat
any slack whatsoever on any subject? I think not. Please tell me if I am
wrong, but I really think the answer is no. They see an opening - or
they make one up - and then it's full tilt boogey into condemnation and
slander and off with his head.

PeteyPuck is right -- this story almost died; if it hadn't been for
the leaking senior Administration official, it would have drifted off
into tinfoil-hat territory. They thought they could get away with it,
mostly because they really could've.

I think the name does matter as far as whether they:
A) intentionally/knowingly blew a CIA agent's cover to intimidate future critics and their families, or
B) recklessly/negligently blew her cover in an attempt to discredit a current critic.

Neither is excusable but option A is much worse--and more likely if
they used "Plame". I don't know why Novak would use her name if they
didn't give it to him--though he probably could have figured it out--but
who knows.

"I think the name does matter as far as whether they:
A) intentionally/knowingly blew a CIA agent's cover to intimidate future critics and their families, or
B) recklessly/negligently blew her cover in an attempt to discredit a current critic."

A. would be criminal under the statute, B. would not be.

The July 12th leak revealed in the WaPo today came from an
'administration official' and he used 'Wilson'. This leak came 2 days
before Novak's column. The leak to Novak' was from a 'senior
administration official(s)' who likely used 'Plame' and may have come
after the July 12th leak, or maybe not.

Curse you, Kevin Drum! I thought I was the only person who had given any thought to this question (I first raised it at Tom Maguire's site 10 days ago), but I had been procrastinating on putting up a full post. Now you've beaten me to it.

Anyway, to show why I was procrastinating, I have an epic post on my site that attempts to answer your question in the context of the known/suggested evidence.

The short answer: There is no "innocent" reason. As cs suggests
above, there's some intentional malice toward the CIA involved. But
some of the leakers may have been tricked into using the name "Valerie
Plame."

I saw it written somewhere (don't recall where) that someone working
at the NSC had previously worked with Valerie Plame at the CIA.
Ambassador Wilson himself worked on the NSC from June 1997 until July
1998.

The connection of Plame to Wilson very likely came from a connection
of that sort. The NSC people are also the ones who would have clearance
to find out the names of agents.

Novak knew exactly what he was doing when he used her maiden name, and so did the leaker.

Without knowing what Novak knew immediately before the call,
it's hard to do more than float guesses around. Novak has
been working Washington for quite a long time. It is not
hard to imagine that he might maintain files of background
information, and that there might be an entry in there for
the Wilsons. Why use the name Plame? If Mrs Wilson used a
private-sector job as her front, it is possible that she used
her maiden name in the workplace, and that Novak picked it up
from there. Possibly it worked better for style to give her
greater apparent authority by using her maiden name. Possibly
he meant to distinguish her from his previous wives. Or the
name may have been pushed by the leaker to give the outing
a personal flavor for the Wilsons. We just don't know.

I agree that, at the end of the day, published references to
the name "Plame" are beside the point. Any reference sufficient
to identify her, together with a claim that she was a CIA
operative, was enough to damage the nation's security.

Jassalasca Jape: Why do you think it is that those reporters,
contacted along with Novak, have refused to publish accounts of their
conversation with the leakers? They needn't name name's, but they could
surely help clarify those facts that are known. Why don't they do it?

Craigie, if you can come up with a logical explaination that covers
the facts as we know them, and at the same time absolves any member of
the current Administration of deliberate wrongdoing, then please feel
free to do so.

That is what Kevin opened this thread for, and you can post whatever you think will fill the bill for your side.

No flaming, no jokes, just start from the old Joe Friday request: "Just the facts, sir."

LARRY WILMOTT wrote (upthread, 10/12, 6:13pm):
"I don't understand the need for the question. This is from the July 22 Newsday article by Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce:

'Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the
information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They
thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." '

Why is Larry off-target? If he's not, then what's the point of this thread?

Sovereign Eye: "Why do you think it is that those reporters,
contacted along with Novak, have refused to publish accounts of their
conversation with the leakers? They needn't name name's, but they could
surely help clarify those facts that are known. Why don't they do it?"

Because once it is known that X knows who the leakers are, there will
be pressure on X to name the leakers; and, just as people are calling
Novak names for not telling us who used him, X would also be subject to
similar opprobrium.

Sovereign Eye: Why do you think it is that those reporters,
contacted along with Novak, have refused to publish accounts of their
conversation with the leakers? They needn't name name's, but they could
surely help clarify those facts that are known. Why don't they do it?

For the same reason that the outing of a CIA operative by a bunch of
politicians is a prospective security disaster. Reporters must retain
the trust of their sources if they expect to continue working at a rate
that will pay for their children's education. It would not be very
comforting to a reporter's other sources if he or she stood up,
in the midst of an active FBI investigation into the Plame affair, and
said "I was called by a White House official and told of Mrs Wilson's
position in the CIA, but I most certainly won't reveal the name of the
person I spoke with. Unless, of course, I'm served with a subpoena".

There may be other intimidatory maneuverings and messages working the
background, but like the rest of it, we just don't know. Yet.

I can't imagine that this thing is going to grind to a halt. Too
many people know, and there is too much at stake. In that way, it's a
bit like a shipment of yellowcake from Niger to Iraq would have been
had, er, such a thing actually happened in the lead-up to Iraq War.

On reflection, maybe I do understand it. The Big House "feeds the
mouths that kiss the ass". Leastwise, I'll assume that's what you
meant.

The thing is, in this instance, people have been drawn into a
scenario of historical import. What they now do- or now fail to do-
will be long noted by those "who know us not, and that we know not of".

They'll be remembered, in spite of themselves and like it or not. I
would guess that even the most craven amongst them will take pause when
considering that.

People scoff, but I contend this nation is already in the midst of a
constitutional crisis; they just don't know it yet. Bush is currently
involved in a coverup, in which he's seeking to protect those
lieutenants of his that broke the law. Frankly, I think it likely he
was involved from the git-go. But be that as it may, he's surely
involved now, and up to his neck.

The constitutional crisis that was Watergate did not commence the
day the James McCord began to sing to Judge Sirica. It began the moment
that Nixon's 'plumbers' broke the law. Well before John Dean spilled
his guts to the Ervin committee, and long before the American people
suspected something had gone wrong.

We're not far beyond the "something isn't right" stage. But this
story isn't going to disappear. Quite the contrary. Too many people-
including many a stunned journalist- are in the loop. The truth will
out. And when it does, the Bush administration will be finished.

I think the name does matter as far as whether they:
A) intentionally/knowingly blew a CIA agent's cover to intimidate future critics and their families, or
B) recklessly/negligently blew her cover in an attempt to discredit a current critic.

I write:

B. is still criminal and could be a capital offense. See 18 USC 794 (a).

(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to
any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval
force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by
the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any
document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument,
appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life,
except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury
or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense
resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section
101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an
individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in
the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry,
military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means
of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans;
communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other
major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

A NOC CIA officer's identity is Top Secret information, which means
that unauthorized disclosure would cause immeasurable and irrepairable
harm to the security of the United States. Everybody who has such a
clearance signs a document every year that states that they understand
they can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for unauthorized
disclosure of classified information.

Therefore the leaker had, "reason to believe that it (Plame's identity as a NOC CIA officer) is to be used to the injury of the United States." Getting that information published in the newspaper certainly fulfills: "communicates,
delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or
transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or
military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or
unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer,
agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or
indirectly, any . . . information relating to the national defense."

So, at minimum, the leakers can be sentenced to very long stretch in
the slammer, up to life. And, if it can be proven that any of Plame's
contacts have been killed as a result of this leake, the perps can be
executed.

Newsday stands by it's interview with Novak. The White House fed it
all to him. He reported it. It is also revealing of Novak's nature that
he tried to lob another grenade on top of this by stating on CNN that
Plame gave money to the Dems and accused her of incorrectly reporting
who her employer was. Turns out her employer was in fact the now defunct
CIA invented company. This was also probably White House fed to him and
he reported it. I don't believe a lot of brain power goes on with Novak
when it comes to getting info out for the White House. They tell him
and he reports it. There is no innocent explanation to using her maiden
name. There is no innocent explanation to accusing her of illegally
making false statement on a political contribution. The only way Novak
is innocent is the possibility that his own CIA source is feeding him
just enough info to hang himself and the Bush Political Mafia and Novak
is too stupid to see it. Does that seem possible? I think not.

If it was deliberate, as I believe it was, the folks behind the leak
were willing to waste Plame, her entire network, and any other NOC
operative and network who used the Brewster Jennings front, which
obviously purported to be some sort of oil/gas operation.

I wonder if these leaks havent' been about sending signals outside
the US as well as warning shots to those inside the intelligence wars
clearly going on.

Yes, once Plame's name was out, her Jennings Brewster link could
easily be found out. If doesn't mean much to ordinary folks to know her
front company, so why publish it? Novak sets it up like a smear on her
professionalism in using the company name to file her campaign
contribution.

That's pretty lame. The administration is more likely using Novak to tell specific folks specific things for specific reasons.

One thing to keep in mind in terms of how events apparently
transpired is the retelling of them by the Washington Post's
unidentified source who is a senior administration official. After
their second reference to him yesterday, the Post seems convinced that
this official was very, very close to the action that led up to the
exposure of Plame.
Some boggers have commented that this source was "in the room" when
some of the contacts to reporters were made. If the Post's source can
be believed--and it is incredibly fascinating to speculate on that
person's possible motives--the effort within the White House to smear,
intimidate and get revenge was an orchestrated one. It may have been
stupid and unintentionally criminal but it was never uncoordinated and
certainly never an innocent ploy.
As far as Novak is concerned he is a "journalistic operative." And
I use the term operative in the way he now says he always has--in other
words, he is a "political hack" of long (forty-three years) standing.
Hacks never mind being used by their bosses and/or sources.

Unless a leaker comes forward, or a leakee, and the DOJ has no
choice but to follow new evidence that leads to the WH. Then we could
see Karl fall like the statute of Saddam! And Bush go down hard in 2004.
The potential is there.

It's quite clear that one high administration official who knows
where all the bodies are buried has kept this scandal going by at least
twice leaking damaging information to the Washington Post. If
the press' interest flags, he'll be meeting with Pincus and Allen late
at night in a parking garage real soon to feed them more damning
information. As long as Rove doesn't figure out who this leaker is and
"take care of him," this scandal isn't going away.

I saw it written somewhere (don't recall where) that someone
working at the NSC had previously worked with Valerie Plame at the CIA.

You might have read me speculating about Mary K. Sturtevant, Senior
Director of Intelligence Programs at NSC, who came over from the CIA.
Her early work was in technology transfer and proliferation. She
probably knew Plame personally.

I don't want to be like Sumwon, beating his Robert Joseph theory to
death, so I haven't flogged her name around in the same way, but
Sturtevant is my pick in the Who Named Plame? pool. She didn't make the
phone calls to the reporters, but in my view she was probably the person
who committed the crime of leaking Plame's classified identity to
people who had no right to know.

I think one of the keys behind the use of the name Plame may come
from Novak own testimony. Recall that he admitted the CIA asked him not
to use her name. Interestingly, he has never tried to duck that, even
though it involves admitting that he went against the CIA's explicit
request.

So it may be that the name itself, Plame, is considered to be
particularly threatening--an indication that Novak's info comes from
high enough up to understand how her cover actually worked (that is,
that the maiden name had some value). Perhaps the CIA particularly
emphasized that they did not want Novak to use _Plame_, and he did so
specifically as a warning to the CIA.

My other less serious suggestion is that perhaps Plame is how Aldrich
Ames leaked her name. Josh Marshall makes the point that if Cliff
May's assertion that Plame's identity was well-known were true, it may
have been because of Ames' earlier treason. Now I think Marshall is
just suggesting that May be careful or this act, the outing of Plame's
name, may be able to be closely connected to Ames' treason. But it is
interesting to wonder if the form that this is taking still carries the
mark of the earlier outing.

I find all this back and forth about her married name/maiden name,
etc. utterly irrelevant and annoying. Along with questions about
Wilson's qualifications and thoroughness, it only helps the WH blow
smoke over the whole matter.

Once you say, "Wilson's wife is a CIA operative," you've said it all.
Finding out her name is a trivial task for anyone interested. Just see
jsq's posting of the Who's Who listing above.

A previous poster wrote:
I think the name does matter as far as whether they:
A) intentionally/knowingly blew a CIA agent's cover to intimidate future critics and their families, or
B) recklessly/negligently blew her cover in an attempt to discredit a current critic.

I think B is the most likely scenario, but I don't see why it is
exculpatory. Does intent in the statute refer to the action or the
consequence of the action?

If Rove "takes care of" the second leaker, then the scandal will immediately blow wide open.

John Mitchell had Martha drugged and locked up when she began making
too many late night phone calls to reporters during Watergate and
nothing much happened in the affair for a long time, so I wouldn't be so
sure of that.

Don't be surprised if a "senior administration official" suffers a heart attack or a debilitating stroke in the near future.

I find it odd that we give this blanket authority to journalists to
protect their sources in all situations and contexts. We don’t give the
same universal amnesty to any other profession, including lawyers and
doctors.

It is one thing for a journalist to protect a source who reveals
classified information in an effort to get a newsworthy story out. In
these cases, the journalist is just an innocent conduit for the story,
and typically the leak is a revelation of some other “crime” that has
already taken place.

It is quite another case for a journalist to be a principal party to
THE crime – aiding and abetting, and in this case actually facilitating
the execution of the crime. There was no crime prior to the story –
thus Novak is absolutely a party to this crime – as guilty as the guy
who drives the getaway car in a bank heist. He should be pleading the
5th amendment, not exercising journalistic privilege.

Imagine a far grimmer leak of classified information – a member of
the government revealing the location of groups overseas to a
journalist. Wouldn’t the publication of the story, with locations, be
considered an act of treason? And shouldn’t both the leaker and the
reporter be cited for their collective participation in the illegal
deeds? Or would you continue to assert that the reporter is entitled to
protect his sources, and by extension, himself?

I would suggest that the journalism industry should collectively hang
Novak for abusing this journalistic privilege. I don’t think it would
necessarily be a bad thing to set the precedent that journalists will
not tolerate themselves being used to commit crimes. They should be
reporters, not active participants in the story.

I consider your suggestion of relishing this scandal as it unravels
somewhat declasse! You really ought to have more respect for the
seriousness of this, less relish for the scandal, and more of a direct
interest in finding justice.

"I think B is the most likely scenario, but I don't see why it is
exculpatory. Does intent in the statute refer to the action or the
consequence of the action?"

Yes, the disclosure of a covert agent's identity must be intentional.
And the person must know the agent is a covert operative. So intent
matters, a lot.

The interesting thing here is that the disclosure to Novak seems a
clean and clear violation. Whoever did it had to know her status since
he used her "Plame" name. Novak refers to the person as covert. She was
covert. And it was clearly intentional. Novak said it was pushed on
him. The secret source confirms this.

On the other hand, in the July 12th disclosure by the "administration
official," the leaker used the name "Wilson" and said that she was a
CIA analyst, and thus by implication, not covert, even though she was.
These facts, if true, do not clearly violate the statute. They suggest
(1) the guy did not know she was covert, and thus even though his
comments would have outed her as covert anyway, (2) his 'unknowing'
disclosure of her status would not have beedn intentional.

Rove's alleged July 22 (is that right?) disclosures ("it's ok to go after her") would have also met the elements of the statute.

But there is a defense written into the statute. If the US
'publicly' discloses the agent's identity prior to a subsequent
disclosure, the subsequent disclosure is not actionable even if it
otherwise meets all of the elements of the crime.

So, if the US had disclosed Plame's covert status "publicly" at some
point prior to the leak to Novak, then the subsequent leaks (including
the leak to Novak and the leaking by Rove) would not be actionable under
the sttatute as a matter of law.

That's why it's interesting that this new July 12th disclosure comes
out. It would be awfully helpful if it came before the disclosure to
Novak, and if it counted as a public disclosure by the us. It would not
only get all of the leakers off the hook, except the July 12th one
itself. But amazingly, the July 12th leak appears not to violate the
statute because it was not knowing and intentional. TADA! (And one
reason why the use of Wilson v. Plame is important.) No crimes were
committed. And evedrybody gets off the hook. And, no need to even find
out who did the leaks to Novak or to look into any leaks by Rove.

Someone may get punished, like whomever disclosed to the "administration officals," senior and otherwise.

It may not come out that way, but it could. They need a prior
disclosure of her covert status to kill the part of the criminal
investigation that threatens the White House most directly. It is a
total defense to any subsequent disclosure. Look for one to appear.
The question is whether this would lead to further damaging leaks from
that one unnamed source, or from the CIA. Doubtful, butwho knows.

The bottom line is, Aschroft is going to shut the investigation down
as soon as he can. He could conclude that no laws were broken, or he
could find there was a prior disclosure by lower administration official
that is actionable and prosecute that. What he is not going to do is
embark on a wide ranging inquiry to find out who leaked what to whom and
when beyond what he needs to address any actual crimes, or to conclude
there were no crimes. This is not Ken Star investigating Clinton.

p.s. A more aggressive prosecutor would go after the conspiracy that
appears to have existed to out and damage Plame, this would in effect
do away with the subsequent disclosure defense, and would bust the whole
thing wide open. But I don't see Johnny doing that. Not unless
someone was selling bongs, or tending medical marijuana plants or
watching prono as part of the conspiracy...

Robert Novak has been THE conservative commentator for longer than I
have been aware of newspapers. (that is, considerably pre Nixon era.) He
is the player on the conservative side, and has been the Washington
authority bar none for 30 years or more.

He is also repeatedly acknowledged by friend and foe alike as being
meticulous in both research and phrasing. He does not make errors of
this magnitude. It as if he had stated something about Washington being
on the west coast, confusing the capital and the state. It ain’t gonna
happen folks.

He also has been happily used in the past as the conduit for smear
campaigns against the enemies of republican administrations. I cannot
recall the details, but it seems to me my mother always talked about his
strong ties to Nixon, and I know he ran interference for Reagan. He is
too smart, too well connected and too willing to be the attack dog for
exactly this sort of naked vendetta, to make any valid claim of
innocence.

It is a role that he has filled in the past, and he is far to savvy
to credit any claims of incompetence, sloppiness, mis-wording, or any
other dodge to. There just is not even an improbable circumstance, where
gifting him an incredible benefit of the doubt, allows one to find any
possibility that this was an innocent oversight.

In short, unless he got whacked over the head, or had a stroke, he
was repeating the message that he was handed to deliver, knowing that it
was an open threat against anyone speaking out against the Bush
administration.

Funny how the whitehouse suppress this kind of stuff... oh and then
you get all the right wing harpies coming out of the dark corners to
defend stupidity never before seen in the history of America (with the
exception of Dick Nixion) of course. ohhum we all know no one will get
impeached or arrested or censured over this one, they'll get away with
it, like they let their ENRON and CSFB and the rest of the big buck
buddies... democracy, justice..if this all wasnt such a freakin
nightmare it would be funny...